Ranger: What needs fixing?

[Jaligard]

I know this has been done to death, but... I'm planning on making my own Ranger version because I have not been happy with any of the ones I've seen so far. (I have a working version, but I decided to make sure I was fixing the right things.)

Anyway, could you please help me out by telling me what DOES need to be fixed with the Ranger and what does NOT need to be fixed? And why if you have time. Thanks!

Here's a list of what I've got so far:

It's front-loaded (3 bonus feats at first level--really encourages people to take one level of Ranger and forget about it).

The Favored Enemy bonuses are all screwed up. They scale with level, but do so in such a way as to be next to useless (the creatures you need a +1 against at first level are not the ones you need a +5 against at 20th level). Many of the types of creatures that you will be fighting throughout your career are immune to critical damage and do not need to bluffed or sense motived, etc (undead). (Nevertheless, I like the fact that you get better at fighting the opponent you select at first level--I don't like solutions where you would suddenly have a +5 to fight dragons at 20th level without ever having them as a Favored Enemy before.)

Lots of skills needed with few skill points. Animal Empathy, Hide, Move Silently, and Wilderness Lore are all needed to match a 2e Ranger, but the 3e Ranger only gets 2 extra skill points.

No mid- or high-level abilities. Aside from spells and Favored Enemy bonuses (which are all screwed up), you don't get much for advancing as a Ranger.

Spells. I actually like the spells they get, especially with the Forgotten Realms ones.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I would definatly say they would benifit from the addition of some bonus feats at higher levels, and probably should get small boost in skill pionts. If the players careful the favored enemy set up isn't a huge problem.
Have you seen Monte Cook's revision?

 

[Crothian]

Ranger spells rock. Ya, they don't have high level abilites, but the spells replace these.

The skill points is a bit on an issue, but I've always seen people play rangers with a high Int doe help this.

The favorted enemy is something that needs to be changed. I think the bonuses should always be the same. So at level 10 you have three favorite enemies at +3. It's much simplier then many of the Alt ranger versions.

The extra feats at first are a big deal. That needs fixed.

 

[Jaligard]

I forgot the whole Two-Weapon Fighting thing. The current Ranger class ropes you into a style of combat which does not necessarily agree with every Ranger. I don't see why every Ranger should be a dual-weapon wielding guy. What about the archer?

 

[DMaple]

Personally I think you could do with losing the spells altogether and make them more like special abilities (similair to the druid) gained with advancing levels.

Look at is this way, for a Ranger Wisdom is likely to be the third, forth or even fifth choice for a attribute, since being combat and skill related they will probably be better off having higher DEX (restricted armour selection), STR, CON and INT.

Due to that most Rangers won't be casting all their levels of spells without getting some magical WIS boost, and although I agree their spell selection is better suited to them nowdays they don't get enough to make it worth while.

Special abilities stretched out through the class would be more incentive to take extra levels.

 

[Jaligard]

I've seen the Monte Cook Ranger, and I kind of like it. It's the best one out there I've seen. My working modification of the Ranger is essentially a cross between the Monte Cook Ranger and the PHB Ranger.

Thanks for all the replies, guys. That was very fast.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I agree about the 2-weapon stile, wouldn't multipul options be better? I mean isn't a ranger maore likely to want better skill with a bow?
I'm playing a charcter right now that started out as Ranger but for roleplaying reasons i wanted him to have a full blade and a bow, thus making the 2-weapon virtual feats usless. After a while I gave up on ranger, took a level in fighter and the character is currently hard core on the devoted defender path.

 

[Devall2000]

I see no reason why the ranger should get 2-weapon fighting and ambidexterity just by virtue of being ranger. Any feat bonuses, should be more along the line of track if anything. Perhaps, the bonuses could be converted to pluses for Ranger skills.

I feel like Monte Cooke's Ranger fixed a lot of the problems. However, in answer to your question, I think Rangers should be allowed to choose their own race as a favored enemy without being evil.
-Jamie

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The Wheel of Time Woodsman isn't a bad revision either.

But frankly I think the current ranger is a fine class, even though the whole dual-weilding thing isn't really my style.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Well 2WF is about equal to heavy armor proficiency... if you take it away from rangers, you'd better take plate armors from fighters, psychic warriors, and paladins and drop the barbarian's hit die down to d10 for first level to compensate.

I figgure favored enemy is the only thing that needs changed. I fixed it by replacing it with the bounty hunter's Target ability, modified to fit D&D.

Here's the link: Click Here